About your Search

20121002
20121010
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
in changing our policy in afghanistan to count terrorism. we're trying to prop up a government in afghanistan. couldn't terrorism requires far less troops and focuses at striking against al qaeda sweledl as well as any taliban insurjents we might need for the purpose of our fight. i believe that the draw down in afghanistan is well positioned. i'm actually an advocate of something that is more accelerated. i have been for quite some time and i believe we focus on couldn't terrorism which risks less lives. >> we're going to go back on the economy. you say you support a comprehensive solution to the deficit that includes revenues and cuts in spending. can you name one program you've eliminated while you've been in congress? >> yes the s 22. i voted this is something the pentagon did not want but there were those advocating for it. i voted against the s22 which was cut by the way. i voted on a different alternative fighter engine that was not necessary as well and that was cut. and those are examples of programs that were cut. but whey don't want to do is what my opponent says he embraces the ry
about a stimulus and hiring more government workers and having the government making investments. of course, he talks about raising taxes. they plan to raise taxes on the american people and that will kill jobs. we want to create jobs and not kill jobs in this country. [applause] we also heard this plan are raising taxes and cutting medicare. in fact, there has been a study released this week. the people look at his spending plans and all of the debt they create and interest that its charge. he will raise taxes on the middle class as well by some $4,000 per family. the american people do not want more taxes. they want less spending and more growth. we will do that and get america back on a balanced budget. [applause] i do not want to raise taxes on any one. this president seems to think that keeping our taxes the same as they are now is a huge tax cut. only in washington would do thing keeping taxes as they are is a huge tax cut. hot i will find a way to bring our taxes down -- i will find a way to bring down our taxes. we will give the middle class a tax break. [cheers and appla
declaring war irdlede pscriptiondrugexpaded they are concerned with the lack of accountability in government. in the case of occupy, it's wall street, and guess what -- they are both right. >> he summed it up beautifully. >> when you were running, it was a matter of people getting to call into an 800-number. now we're into this world of social media, where you can tweet something out in a matter of seconds. do you think that would make a third-party iran or any kind of a people's movement easier today than it was 20 years ago when you had to rely on people calling in to a phone number? do you think the computer revolution, which you have been involved since the start, and in particular at the social media revolution of the last several years, should create a situation where you are on twitter, where you can mobilize people more easily? >> sure. >> shouldn't that make the type of solution you are talking about, people demanding change, similar to have? >> that is what we need, and i think that is a good way to do it. >> the problem would be they have the tools today to instantly to mobilize.
networks for the poor in new mexico. i believe if the federal government would have block granted the state of new mexico 43% less money, done away with all the strings and the mandates that i could have effectively overseen the delivery of health care to the poor. i think you apply that same template to medicare, health care for those over 65, get the federal government out of the health care business completely, give it up to the states -- in this case block grants that balance revenu with expenditures -- and that's how we're going to get out of this. we're going to -- giving it up to the states, 50 laboratories of innovation and best practice, i think that's exactly what we will have. we'll have some fabulous success, we'll also have some horrible failure. failure will get avoided, success will get emulated. but that's how we're going to find our way out of this. >> host: gary johnson is joining us from new mexico this morning. he will be with us for about 40 more minutes. we'll put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen as we take a look at the libertarian nominee and his positio
conservative as katherine made clear, there's nothing conservative about a government that prevents a woman from making her own health care decisions. governor romney talks about freedom. but freedom is the ability to determine the care you need when you need it. freedom is the ability to change jobs or start your own business without the fear of losing your health insurance. freedom is the knowledge that you'll no longer be charged more than men for the same health care. or denied affordable coverage just because you've beat cancer. and at a time when women make up nearly half the work force, and an increasing share of family bread winners, these are not just health issues or women's issues. these are economic issues that are vital and affect every family in america. they matter. when -- when a woman is the main bread winner for her family but takes home less pay for the same work, as a man does because she's a woman, that is not right. when my opponent's campaign was asked if he'd support legislation given -- giving women the tools to fight for an equal day's pay for an equal day's work,
of that nature. now, it's different whether there's a government grant, where the market power derives from political authority. and that's true of some of the essential facility cases. stadiums, stadium approvals and the like. but if the facility has become essential through market processes, which is surely the case of google, it represents success. and that firm is entitled to all the reward it can gain. now, greg and bob do a terrific job of showing why the google experience does not fit the scraps of law on essential facilities. but i think they should go further. they should deny that there's any merit to the concept at all. now, i think this is true of other parts of the paper. as i alluded to earlier, much of the paper is empirical. and i learned a lot from it really. there's a lot of detail in it. and i learned a lot. but the -- those responses and that empirical -- making the point that criticism by competitors of google's practices are just wrong on the facts. but i think that that's not enough. especially in representing the chicago school. the failings of the arguments by googl
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6